I was about 90% sure that you were but added that just in case.
I’m going to keep cluelessly doing what good I feel is within my wherewithal and not worry about this leaving me exposed to criticism from people who would prefer I do more or nothing at all.
I wonder whether some, as in the Little Orphan Annie comics, end up adopting or fostering the child they “rent” for the holidays? Or, of those who volunteer to serve food at a soup kitchen at Thanksgiving, do some come back and become regular volunteers? So these baby steps might be helpful in encouraging people to participate.
Or heard the one about the Southern matron who calls a sergeant at the local army base and offers to host three soldiers for Thanksgiving dinner, but insists that none of them be Jewish?
On Thanksgiving day, three smiling Black soldiers show up at her door.
“There must be some mistake!” she stammers.
“No, ma’am!” one of the soldiers replies. “Sergeant Greenberg never makes mistakes.”
Maybe - it’s entirely possible a group home (which IME usually has no more than a dozen kids ) has sent them all to visit relatives over a holidays ( because nowadays it would be relatives , not strangers). In which case they wouldn’t need any more staff than a boarding school where all the students went home for the winter break.
But the “invite strangers to a holiday dinner” thing isn’t something that only applied to orphanages - I’m pretty sure it happened in every situation where people were distant from family and unable to travel back.
Not everyone can adopt a child, or be a foster parent.
To me, “slacktivism” is more along the lines of “I gave money, so I feel good” – that is “doing the bare minimum.” These people are actively taking an orphan (or a kid in the foster system, or a soldier) into their homes for a few days or a few weeks, and taking care of them during that time.
I’d expect that the group home (or whatever) is making it clear to the child that it’s a temporary thing. Certainly, the kid would likely want to be placed in a home and family permanently, but in the meantime, spending a few days to a few weeks in a family’s home, particularly during the holidays, likely is a lot more enjoyable for the kid than spending that time in the group home.
IMO, you’re being very critical of a good deed, because it’s not what you consider to be a good enough deed.
I’ve never taken in an orphan for the holidays, but i often invite someone who doesn’t have local family for Passover or Thanksgiving, because that’s a time when it’s nice to be at a family-style meal. I guess i think of that as hospitality, not charity. (And it’s usually someone i know, or someone one of my kids knows. Except it’s also been random college students, generally foreigners for whom it’s not worth traveling home for a short holiday.) But i think the motive is similar.
I think you’re right that it absolutely can be and I’m sure there are people who do it to make themselves feel good. There are people like that everywhere: homeless shelters, charity events, you name it. People love self-aggrandizing charity. That doesn’t mean that it’s the case for everybody and it doesn’t mean the practice is inherently shitty.
By your logic we should never do anything nice for anybody unless we’re prepared to make the gesture a permanent arrangement. Want to buy dinner for a friend? Oh no, you’re just showing them a world where somebody pays for their dinner! How shitty must it be to force them back into a world where they have to pay their own way the other 364 days of the year?
But here’s the main problem with your logic. You do not seem to understand how shitty it can be to live in a group home. These kids are getting an opportunity for a few blessed days of awesome food and probably gifts. It’s like getting a prison furlough.
Maimonides would probably peg the instagram self-aggrandizers at level 7, which is a pretty shitty level. But it’s still a mitzvah. It’s still charity. It’s still good.
ETA: I see that I really overused “shitty” in that post, but you know what? I’m standing by it.
I did for a couple of years. Or rather we were doing a corporate team building event at the community kitchen, and I decided to go every Sunday to actually work in the kitchen. Until I moved out of that state. It was very hard work even for a 30-something man in good health.
BTW, the corporate team building event was in fact theatre. We paid them $1500 to arrange it for us. Basically a bunch of middle class white collar folks cluelessly trying to unload trucks and stock shelves.
So, your corporation actually did help the kitchen. I bet that $1500 more than made up for hosting you. 
And they got “advertising”. You actually volunteered as a result.
Yeah, that’s a good list.
I think it’s an awful thing to do to a child. Let them experience the thing they want more than anything in the world, and then take it away? “Haha, just kidding!”
The need for love and bonding is the biggest need in children after food and shelter. You don’t toy with them over it, no matter how good your intentions.
It really is. I have a deep, deep distaste for people who only do good things as a way of generating content that they can brag about. But I do have to remind myself that a mitzvah is a mitzvah; the most cynical charity is more impactful than a person whose idea of bettering the world is spending just enough time at a march or protest to take selfies for social media.
In most instances they would have to go through a rigorous screening process including clearances and background checks for that to even be considered.
In my state they would need to have an initial home inspection, FBI clearances/fingerprints/state police clearances and Childline (central child abuse registry for PA) clearances. It would take awhile but if the initial requirements came through they could be authorized as an emergency caregiver. This is typically done for families of children in placement.
Yes, exactly how I see it.
And I’m writing as a person with 2 adopted children and a foster son (at age 15 - adult, a friend of my kids). I wouldn’t dream of bringing a kid home for the holidays only.
For parents to go in knowing they’re going to send the kid back in a few days, is just extremely solipsistic.
Better to become a Big Brother or Big Sister to a kid, and be in their lives for more than a holiday glimpse of how the happy families live.
You aren’t telling them that they may get to stay there permanently and then pulling the rug out from under them. You are telling them that they get to go to do something special for a day.
I know what you’re telling them. But this isn’t just taking them to the movies or the zoo. This is giving them a family/home experience for a few short hours.
How will this affect them? How will they feel once they go back? Are they going to be grateful to have seen what they can’t have, or bereft?
Which reminds me: Have you seen the original “Roots” miniseries?
It’s on my list!